Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: chuckhatfield Date: Oct 22, 2003 12:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: clearing the mis-information on taper rights

Ok, i am a taper, a lawyer, and I've actually handled some (but admittedly not much) copyright litigation.

It is important to remember that there are two possible copyrights at work here, the copyright of the music being played and the copyright of the recording. Obviously, no taper can expect to get a copyright of the music being played. However, what the original post in this thread lays out is the means by which a copyright in the recording can be had. Though the copyright attaches automatically to the recorded product, the copyright is only created by statute and thus must meet the statutory requirements for a valid copyright. The copyright act, as described above, only creates copyright for the recordist when 1) the recordist is under a written contract to record the copyrighted work by copyright holder (here, phish or whoever your band is) thus creating a "work for hire" or 2) the recordist is recording a work not previously copyrighted. In our case, the work is copyrighted and we are given a limited license to infringe on the copyright by being permitted to tape. a legal license is fully revocable at any time and it may be given with specific conditions. Here, those conditions are not to sell the recordings, and in some examples (such as ABB) not to distribute electronically. So the work we are recording remains specifically copyrighted. Therefore, because any legal copyright basis to the recordings must be based on a statutory grant of a copyright, absent meeting those provisions, the tapers do not have any legal copyrights in their recordings.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: Oct 22, 2003 1:39am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: clarification of taper rights

Wow, thanks for the great run-down for a regular person like me. :)

Here is an illustration of a taper who has copyrighted a series of nature sounds (fits for case 2). (BTW it's also a handy illustration of the Creative Commons license.)

Nature Letter A

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-10-22 08:39:20

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Oct 22, 2003 5:40am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: clearing the mis-information on taper rights

Thanks for clearing that one up. Its nice to know that my opinion is looked down upon but to a pretty big extent correct.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tribe Date: Oct 22, 2003 2:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: clearing the mis-information on taper rights

" Ok, i am a taper, a lawyer, and I've actually handled some (but admittedly not much) copyright litigation."

Great summary. [possible others-baiting part trimmed to keep it real cool- mod.]

Tribe

This post was modified by hamilton on 2003-10-22 09:59:42

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cortex Date: Oct 22, 2003 1:03am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: clearing the mis-information on taper rights

thank you.

I had asked our lawyer to try explain it in laymen terms, but you may have done better.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: thoman8r Date: Oct 22, 2003 5:36am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: clearing the mis-information on taper rights

Thanks for clearing that up. It's nice to hear some first hand knowledge on the subject. I can see now that there was more to it than there seemed at first, and now that I've finally gotten what I asked for all along - something of substance and not just conjecture - I'll let this topic drop. I'm really glad this has been cleared up. I'll go back to my original point - which is to just show the tapers some respect.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Erich Date: Oct 22, 2003 5:46am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: clearing the mis-information on taper rights

just wanted to say you put up a good debate, and you didnt sink to a low level trying to make your points. cheers :)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)